Possible problem for theistic universalism

 Possible problem for theistic universalism

By 'universalism' I mean the view that all human beings or all rational beings will be saved in the end and will experience some sort of unending state of blessedness even if reaching that state for some will require a long period of conscious affliction. By 'theism', I mean a world view that posits as the ontological foundation of all beings a personal God. I'll discuss the case of an universalism that includes all rational beings, which might be defined as sentient beings that can have rational faculties and have some understanding of the 'infinite' nature of God and, therefore, be in communion with God. Personally, I lean towards theism (while I sympathetic to various theistic religious traditions, I'm still an agnostic about them, so my position might be called 'philosophical theism') - although I have some doubts about the meaning of terms like 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' when applied to God - and I think that God created us for more than this temporal life. Indeed, as rational beings we can recognize the finiteness of all finite goods and we can't be satisfied fully by them. So, it seems that only an unending contemplation of God will be a state that fulfills our most innermost yearnings. If God loves all the rational beings He created, arguably He created us with a nature that is properly realized in such a state of contemplation with God.

To return to the topic, let's say that one is presented with these four propositions:

  1. God is omniscient, i.e. God knows at least all possible events 
  2. God is omnipotent, i.e. God can achieve whatever He wants to achieve
  3. God is omnibenevolent, i.e. God loves all rational beings in the same way and, therefore, He wants that each of them will reach a state of unending beatitude
  4. Some rational beings will fail to achieve the state of unending beatitude for which they were created
Clearly, these four propositions form an inconsistent tetrad. If God can achieve what He wants to achieve and God loves all rational beings and wants that each of them will experience unending beatitude in communion with Him, it makes no sense, in my opinion, to say that some might fail to achieve that state. Furthermore, if God knows all possible events and has all the means to achieve the desired state of beatitude for each rational beings He created, then I can't see how His salvific purposes can fail (all the more if God not only knows all possible events but He eternally knows all events that will actually happen - for more thoughts about omniscience see: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/09/omniscience-and-free-will.html where I distinguish between two understandings of 'omniscience'. However, for the purposes of this post it is enough to posit that God knows all possible events. I don't think that my argument here is affected by accepting a particular conception of omniscience or another). 

My main problem is with proposition 2, at least as it is stated. The point is that there are some limitations of what God can do. He cannot erase the fact that I came into existence, for example, even if He might be able to convince all other rational beings that I never did. So, if it is impossible even for God to create rational beings that can't reach a state of irreversible (self-)corruption, then it is possible that some rational beings won't partake in the blessings of the communion with God. We might intend proposition 3 in the sense that God gives all the possible help for each rational being to achieve the state of unending beatitude of communion with Him but, at the same time, there might be limits of what God can do (and our experience of evil in this life does suggest that, I would say... maybe God acts as best as He can to avoid the horrors that happen but, at the same, time there are some limitations of God's agency or perhaps it is simply impossible even for an omnipotent God to avoid that these horror occur). Even if one wants to accept omnipotence, one might say that that it might be simply logically impossible that universal salvation will occur, whether for all human beings or for all rational beings if there are any besides humans (depending on how one understands the scope of God's impartial love). 

If the above is true, it doesn't follow that 'universal salvation' will not occur. It might be a possible final result of creation and I would say it something that we should hope for. And, at the same time, I don't think that an omnibenevolent God would either inflict a state of endless conscious torment (ECT) or allow such a state to happen to any rational being that fail to reach the blessed state for which they were created. Indeed, such a state of ECT would be worse than non-existence. And if God loves all rational beings, including those who might fail to reach the blessed state, I can't make sense to the view that God will let such a state to happen to them. It might be the case that God annihilates these 'incurable' rational beings (a sort of eschatological euthanasia) or grant them a perpetual state of unconsciousness, maybe after a period of conscious suffering that is proportional to the evil they have accumulated. However, I fail to recognize how ECT for any rational being can be in any way compatible with a loving God that loves equally all rational beings. So, if some rational beings will tragically miss unending blessedness, it seems to me more reasonalbe to say that they either eventually will be annihilated or be unconscious or perhaps will exist in a state of happiness proper for irrational beings - after all, in all these alternatives, the 'irreversibly lost' will lose an infinite good. Among these alternatives, annihilation seems to be always possible in so far as God can stop to give the gift of existence to rational beings for whom existing would be worse than non-existing. Let's hope that this will not happen to anyone, at least in the case of human beings if some other rational beings already 'crossed the line' and have become already 'irreversibly corrupted'.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ in Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ [1] in  Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia Introduction *Update (12/08): an updated version of this post can be found here:  https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of.html   * In this text, witnesses of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s and Diodore of Tarsus’ eschatological ‘universalist’ views, are reported.  As shall we see, the attestations of Diodore’s endorsement of a form of apokatastasis are always accompanied by an attestation of his disciple, Theodore, endorsing the same view. All these common testimonies are from Syriac sources, both Eastern-Syriac - Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7 th century in his Second Part, 39.7-14; for Theodore only in his Second Part, 3.3.94 ), Solomon of Basra (fl. 13 th century in his book of the Bee, 60 ), Theodore bar Konai (fl. 8 th century in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63 ) - and Western-Syriac - John of Dara (fl. 9 th century...
Read more

On the presence of universalism in East Syrian tradition

On the presence of universalism [1] in East Syrian tradition *Update (12/08) : An updated version of this post can be found here: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/on-presence-of-universalism1-in-church.html * East Syrian theologians were influenced by Diodore of Tarsus (fl. 4 th century), his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4-5 th century) who is called the ‘Interpreter/Exegete/Expositor’ in the East Syrian church (also called ‘Church of the East’), and Evagrius Ponticus (fl. 4 th century) [2] .  The point of this text is to show that there a was significant prevalence of the idea in this tradition (this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a majority view). For more details about Diodore and Theodore see my previous post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of_28.html A testimony of an opponent: Babai the Great (fl. 6 th century): Let me start with the testimony of an opponent of ‘universalism’ in the Eas...
Read more

On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors

  On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors *Update(12/08): an updated version of this post can be found here:  https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/08/possible-traces-of-universalism-in.html   * Introduction In what follows, I’ll present some evidence for the presence of a doctrine or a sympathy of universalism (i.e. the belief that all human beings will be ultimately saved) in some Latin Fathers. There are some suggestive passages in the writings of Ambrose of Milan and John Cassian. Also, Rufinus of Aquileia, in his quarrel against Jerome of Stridon, while admitting that the fate of the wicked is a mystery shows a clear sympathy for the doctrine of universalism. However, it should be noted that none of the figures I quote in this post have been cited as universalists (as far as I know) before the 19 th century and, also, the interpretation of their texts never seem to have caused controversy among later writers...
Read more